“Perhaps we should love ourselves so fiercely that, when others see us, they know exactly how it should be done.”

—

Rudy Francisco

=====

Ok.

Society norms.

Group norms.

Individual norms.

They are (kind of) the three behavioral levels of why we do the shit that we do.

Each is powerful in its own right. And while creating alignment within all three can sometimes be a real bitch of a challenge, I would actually suggest we should view individual behavior the following way:

Society norms.

Individual norms.

Group norms.

I suggest this because I believe individual norms, our personal behavior, is constantly being squeezed by society overall as well as the groups in our circle of influence.

I note this because, if you are not careful, you get squeezed into, well, maybe not nothingness, but certainly “lessness.”

I note this to suggest you almost always have to fight back.

Okay. How about this instead?

Let’s say you gotta sharpen your elbows and create some space for you in between what society is suggesting <which often feels a lot like it is actually demanding> and what your current circle is outlining as the right way to think and behave.

It is fairly easy to sharpen your elbows and fight back, but without some thought you are simply fighting. You end up fighting with no purpose other than it feels good to fight back in some way. And while fighting back in and of itself is somewhat satisfying because you feel like you should it is less than satisfying because it has no real focus or purpose. I will not suggest it is completely ‘wasted energy’ but it is certainly less than efficient use of your energy.

So what about the ‘thought’ part then? This is where ‘knowing what you want and knowing who you are’ rears its ugly head.

Being “anti” something is pretty easy. I could actually suggest in some ways it is lazy. But what I do know for sure is that being “for something” is hard. Like … well … really hard. You not only have to convince yourself that what you are standing for is something … but also mentally accept it is not going to perfectly align with your group norms as well as the societal norms. Yeah. That means on occasion, maybe even often, you may not be in alignment with all the shit going on around you.

I would argue the former, convincing yourself, is the most difficult part.

Why?

Who I am today is not who I will be tomorrow … combined with … you cannot really hide from what will be … which makes fighting back partially a constant battle of movement and adaptation.

Here is what I know.

Society is not always right.

Your group is not always right.

So why should you always have to be right?

Fighting back isn’t about being “right.” It is simply about fighting for what is right … you. I will not call it individual rights but rather the right to be an individual. Maybe it is also partially a fight for the part of you that you love. I imagine this suggests you gotta find a part of yourself to love … but that I most likely a different post and thought for a different time.

But I love the quote I opened with. It is different than the typical “you have to love yourself before you can …” idea.

It is more about the benefit to you.

It is living Life by example. And maybe that is the bigger thought.

Fighting back against society … against some of your circle of acquaintances norms … is not about simply fighting for fighting sake but rather fighting to show that you, who you are and what you do, shines a fierce light on something you love <who you are and the things you do>.

Yikes. That’s kind of a scary thought. Maybe it is a “hope to attain one day“ type thought.

And you know what? That’s okay.

Hard.

But okay.

Hard because society & group norms suggest the only way you can fight back is to “know now” and not “hope to be.”

Fuck ‘em.

We are a work in progress. All of us and all ‘norms.’

No matter what society says and your group norms state <sometimes unequivocally> we are a constant work in progress. The fight is never a battle for ‘lessness’ … no one can even kiddingly suggest that … all norms at all levels desire ‘moreness.’

They may just not know how to do it or what it looks like.

If you love your ‘work in progress self’ fiercely maybe, just maybe, you will show how it’s done.

“Authority without wisdom is like a heavy axe without an edge, fitter to bruise than polish.”

―

Anne Bradstreet

==============

……… tweet from Republican National Party on June 14, 2018 ………….

Join or Else. If there is one common theme Trump and his merry band of corrupt amoral yahoos have espoused, this is it. Yeah. They may cloak it in some vapid superficial niceties, but, in the end, it “Join or Else.

That said. (stepping back to my words of January 2017)

———————————-

Well.

Yesterday was an interestingly disturbing day to begin “the new era of The United States of America.”

I listened to the Trump inauguration speech with growing horror. It had all the trappings of authoritarianism wrapped snugly in a blanket of patriotism & promises of wealth, security, strength and ‘greatness.’

I listened to it not just as a citizen but as a business guy.

Yeah. Populism can be seen in business just as it can be seen in politics. In business it can be called ‘the cult mentality’ and more often than not its leader is a ‘less-than-benevolent’ dictator. Let’s call it a ‘join, or else’ culture. You can drive membership in this culture a couple of ways … both grounded in fear.

Fear of losing <part 1>.Outsiders are trying to steal what is ours … people who don’t believe in what we believe in are trying to steal what is ours … join us because we are the people who count and matter.

I do not want to lose what is rightfully mine.

Fear of losing <part 2>.I am on the outside looking in and … well … holy shit … if I don’t join I am gonna lose everything <or be branded as a non joiner>.

I will join because if I don’t I am up shit creek without a paddle and lose what I have.

Businesses try this shit all the time. It is their way of building a strong culture, claiming it is inclusive, albeit inclusive is grounded by ‘a tight set of club rules.’ They will argue it is not a tight set but rather a basic construct which binds people in a good way … you call it tomato and I call it rotten. This Trump version of populism is, well, it goes beyond corporate cult culture. This version is close to being batshit crazy dangerous thought leadership.

Let’s look at the brochure and talk a minute with the Trump Club recruiter.

The cover of the brochure suggests an unstoppable America, driven solely by self-interest, in other words, our Club wins at all costs at the expense of anyone who stands in our way! <“if you want to win, join us” it says …>.

It further reads with threatening all those who might stand in the way of this Club and it’s winning/great objective. It contains an adamant stance of ‘no real choice’, i.e., a demanded unity not an asked for unity.

Yeah.

Some of the club benefits look awful good in the brochure … more & better jobs, stronger economy, stronger security, less business regulations and country pride. And then I turn over the brochure just to check out the legalese, the cost of the benefits as it were, to explore how the promises of the Club will be delivered.

The headline on the back of the brochure really wanted me to join this club … the message of “join today because today is the day the people become the rulers of this country.” I vaguely remember that being the call of the French Revolution but it sounds cool <although I could swear we, the people, have been voting in people as representatives for awhile>.

But. Whew. It sounds good. I like it.

It feels empowering and inspirational with the added comfort that I will no longer be one of “the forgotten people which will be forgotten no longer.” I know for sure that would like to not be forgotten and being part of a club would be nice and … well … gosh … uhm … now that I think about it … I didn’t know I had been forgotten.

The recruiter leans forward and says “of course you were, the intellectual globalist elite in Washington and around the world have been keeping you down … they don’t care about you … they have forgotten that it was you that made them part of the wealthy elite.”

Ok. But didn’t your Club President build his wealth off the backs of ‘forgotten people’ and … well … it seems like they aren’t any better off but he is a shitload better off, doesn’t it?

Oh … no, no, no … he appreciates everything they have done for him. Hey. And don’t you want to be wealthy too?

I look down at the brochure and I see the bolded ‘make wealthy’ words and have to ask the club recruiter, decked out in an ‘America first’ hat and neatly pressed ‘make America great’ uniform like shirt, I ask the recruiter … “this becoming wealthy thing … its sounds an awful lot like Amway.”

Oh, no, it is nothing like that at all. Our Club will make everything great for everyone and you will have great opportunities to get the wealth you have always deserved, but haven’t got, because the lazy, less than hard working elite will not get it anymore … we will make sure you get your fair share. Hey. Look at this picture of the Club President in his office … check out the gold curtains … the gold rug and the gold fixtures … that is wealth. That is what you can be part of!

Oh.

And, look, if you join today you get a hat <which you should wear as often as possible so that we can tell who is in the club and who isn’t>.

And, even better, we should have some additional pieces of apparel you can wear soon. In fact … we will have special uniforms & badges for the original club members to showcase their elite status in the club … everyone will want to wear them.

Ok. One last question … your club is “God’s chosen.” I didn’t know God chose … I thought he was all about equal among all men. Does this mean that other clubs don’t believe in God or does God just favor us? And does this mean I have to believe in your version of God and … well … what exactly is your version of God?

“Oh.

Well.

We are a Christian based club … but of course we accept anyone. But don’t forget … Christianity, above all, outlines all the values which lead to a better version of yourself … and, well, that is what we want all Club members to be able to achieve. Everyone should have values, don’t you think?”

Whew. This is fucking crazy shit going on

To be clear. A shitload of the club leaders and followers are going to try and draw some false comparisons and equivalents to past American heroes.

To be clear. This is significantly different than Thomas Jefferson’s plea for unity in his inaugural address in 1800 — “every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle.”

The Trump club has one principle and one opinion.

There is no room for anything else. More important than color of skin, religion, gender … this may actually be my root concern with ‘the club’.

The main principle?

Believe what I believe … or you are not a true believer.

That kind of seems to be the club. Kind of an “us versus them” attitude … uhm … although us <being a US citizen> is actually also them <being US citizens>.

“Oh no … no … why wouldn’t you believe in the United States of America if you lived in there? … everyone believes that. And if they don’t? … well … they should.”

Anyway. Oh. One last question. I didn’t hear it anywhere from the Club President or see it in the brochure … do you guys have a constitution?

Oh, we don’t need one. We just demand a ‘total allegiance to the Club’ … oh … which believes the same things as the country wants … so you should be all for it.”

(ME) Gosh. I am not sure I can join this club … I already have a constitution I live by … and my allegiance is, first & foremost, to that and not some Club and how they think. <period … end of statement>

Look. The one thing Trump was 100% right on is that January 20, 2017 was the dawn of a new era.

“Now comes the hour of action.”

That was the call for the Trump Club. “Join or else”is what should be heard.

Just to be clear.

I am a believer in God <however you want to define it>.

I am a patriot <however you want to define it>.

I am a proud American <however you want to define it>.

But I am not joining the club called “Trump America.”

In fact … I say ‘fuck you and your fucking club.’

As for what I will do? …………….

===============

“I was not born to be forced. I will breathe after my own fashion. Let us see who is the strongest.”

output (halo effect: success or measured productivity does beget a sense of meaning)

The foundation of all dimensions is traction. Traction in terms of senses & sensibility. What I mean by that is the more all senses are immersed (individually) in the tasks at hand AND these is a sensibility of being connected with a likeminded tribe (group) the more likely meaningfulness is attained.

That said. Every business should be thinking about connection, immersion and why it’s difficult for us to find the connection & immersion.

We begin with one word: traction. The world is increasingly noisy, increasingly task oriented with an increasing list of things to do within the same finite amount of time we have always had. All of this encourages us to skate along the superficial surface of things, i.e., never really gain any true traction.

Numb & disconnected.

Lack of traction inevitably creates a sense of numbness which translates into stress because of lack of connection. Many people attribute ‘numbness’ to senses being overwhelmed by the sheer amount of communications and interactions demanded upon us every day. To be clear. Ever since the ‘white collar job’ was created we have been stressed out by over communication and an inordinate pressure on efficiency.

Whether it was the stacks of paper <memos, point of views, letters, reports, presentations, phone messages to be returned, etc.> in the good ole days or today’s hundreds of emails appearing in your inbox our attention has always been challenged.

In 1955, the Hoover Commission peeked inside the files of three major corporations. It discovered, respectively, 34 thousand, 56 thousand, and 64 thousand documents and memos on file for each employee on the payroll.

Nor could the mushrooming informational needs of industrial societies be met in writing alone. Thus the telephone and telegraph were invented which increased the ever swelling communications load.

By 1960 Americans were placing some 256 million phone calls per day — over 93 billion a year – and even the most advanced telephone systems and networks in the world were often over loaded. All these were essentially systems for delivering messages from one sender to one receiver at a time.

What was next? The internet. Society developed a way to send mass messages and communications from one sender to many receivers simultaneously. (Toffler)

We will not get into how all of this creates distractions away from efficiency because it is well researched and well documented. What we do suggest is this overwhelming amount of communication bludgeoning us creates a numbness to specifics and has several repercussions:

A general sense of alienation and anxiety which characterizes the day-to-day existence of many people

Our goal here today isn’t to solve work meaningfulness only to establish the fact employees, for the most part of every working day, are numb.

Conclusion:

We would also suggest this numbness is partially driven by the fact it is difficult to find traction points for people to engage therefore they simply speed along doing things in a relatively superficial (in terms of depth of personal & tribe/group engagement).

Forced engagement.

Since the beginning of time, regardless of the actual # of things calling for our attention, all of us feel overwhelmed with the sheer amount of distractions and things clamoring for our attention moment to moment. Businesses recognize this and have always actively pursued ways to force deeper engagement:

Milestones

KPIs

To do lists

Time management

All are attempts to create some focus, moments of traction, so we can engage with the most important things. while most of these initiative were created with the overall intent to maximize efficient productivity the real intent was driven aby a business fear as employees skated the slippery surface of urgent irrelevant engagement employees would not immerse themselves in the most important things. It was Eisenhower who once said: ‘The most urgent decisions are rarely the most important ones’.

In fact. Most likely the most famous of the forced engagement tactics is US President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Eisenhower Matrix:

Deciphering the urgent from the non-urgent and the important from the unimportant is important because misreading any of these things may create haste at the wrong time and waste energy & focus all of which simply drives us deeper into numbness.

That said.

Mostly with good intentions businesses and Life coaches have gone through extensive efforts to create traction points and methodologies to force is to connect at the right times on the right things.

Unfortunately, most of these things do not engage with the senses but are rather simply achievement based tactics. Achievements create a false sense of immersion (how could we not have been successful if we hadn’t been fully engaged) as well as a false sense of being part of a tribe (these are mostly individual based tactics from which we derive “we” achievement accolades). False may sound harsh so let’s just say forced engagement does drive a deeper engagement, thru increased awareness, but not a particularly deep immersion engagement. In our minds this is hollow traction. All traction is focused on achievement not the efforts within what is invested to achieve.

People, and businesses, recognize Life & work often takes on aspects of ‘grind’ (doing), therefore, actively seek paths to being more connected with Life and more immersed in what is happening.

While multiple ideas exist to address this there are two basic paths:

“I” immersion – mindfulness

“we” immersion – corporate events

Mindfulness is inherently an “I” connection/immersion activity. The idea is to find ways to become more present in the now seeking to find traction points to engage in what can seem like a swirling chaos of blurred activity. Philosophically this traction is an attempt to find some vividness & distinction in what is just a gray blur mental world.

Corporate events (trade shows) are business solutions to “grind” acknowledgement. The idea is to find lily pads in the sea of everyday sameness to slow down and connect with your mind (exchange of ideas with people interested in the same things you are) and immersed in an experience which engages some deeper meaning than simply ‘doing.’

Conclusion:

Both of these paths offer positive benefits to people. Mindfulness encourages people to better engage in moments. Corporate events encourage people to understand they are not ‘in it’ alone and permit better connection with likeminded people. In and of themselves, they are quite useful in creating connection & immersion traction to self & tribes.

But there is another level.

Highest order of connection/immersion.

Eckhardt Tolle suggests this is living in the present. We partially agree. Most people understand you the business word and Life, pragmatically, does not permit someone to be wholly engaged in every single moment. It is mentally and physically exhausting and practically speaking, not the most efficient nor effective ay to get things done. However. Research shows that engaging in what Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi called “flow” moments do create overall lift in how you engage with Life.

Therefore there is a high value in seeking out ways to engage in the highest order of connection and immersion: moments in which All senses engaged + feel like part of a tribe (see: Inclusion not exclusion at work)

We could see something like a NASA space trip as the highest order of connected immersion: all senses are engaged and you are part of a smaller tribe of people (everyday person version of astronauts). Driving a high end car is similar: all senses are engaged and you are part of a smaller tribe of people (people who ‘get’ why that particular car experience cannot be substituted + everyday person version of professional drivers).

Conclusion: Immersion and connection Matters

We would argue seeking immersion and connection is vital to a fuller Life, but, pragmatically, being immersed & connected, even in discrete moments, reflects potential.

It creates a greater sense of “more you feel capable of actually doing something with meaning.” For a business this offers multiple rewards:

An employee, individually, finds a greater connection to life beyond simply ‘doing’

An employee who is engaged is more productive – efficiently & effectively

An employee who feels connected with a tribe is more open to collaboration, teamwork & more focused on greater good objectives than the more simplistic individual reward.

====

“People are energy sources to be activated, not depleted, to maximize businesses. We flippantly discuss jobs as mundane and boring which only makes the people doing them feel meaningless and mundane.”

Bruce McTague

==============

To be successful as an organization a business has to embrace, at least partially, what Gustavo Razzetti says “jobs are not functional.” Organizations ask employees to do things, but should be seeking to have them want to do things. Therefore, we believe it is incumbent for an employer to find traction experiences from which employees/workers can at least get a sense of deeper immersion and connection. To us, the grid we offered upfront is simply the connected/immersion version of the Eisenhower matrix. You should use our matrix to assess worker experiences always seek to find moments in which to offer a traction experience in the upper right hand quadrant.

Yes. Even a moment is important. Why?

===================

“The mind, once stretched by a new idea, never returns to its original dimensions.” Ralph Waldo Emerson

================

If you do nothing, the mind will remain numb.

If you do company events like town halls & Friday fun days, the mind will relax but not really connect and definitely will not be immersed.

If you do send employees to Trade Shows or do create larger off-site corporate events, the mind engages with not only new ideas which stretch current thinking, the senses do engage to a certain level and the connection with some aspect of a tribe (likeminded people) creates a dimension of immersion about ‘numb’ but maybe not as high as fully immersed.

To be sure, the truth is you can’t send everyone up into space but you can send people to trade shows, you can have events at TopGolf and you can have events at places like the Porsche Driving Experience.

In the end.

We believe once a person connects with what it is like to be engaged and a business creates an environment for which those moments can be replicated, not only will employees be more engaged but productivity will increase.

“Shut the fuck up … don’t ever compliment me by insulting other women. That’s not a compliment; it’s a competition none of us agreed to.”

—

(via aussie-with-glasses)

==============

Ok. This isn’t about society & women & standards <although I have written many times on that topic> this is about competitions we don’t agree to in Life, in a society that creates them and a sense of “self” in which we are constantly trying to find meaning in the competition of ‘doing’. Many of us can go through life doing the best we can trying to get along and, in general, view most things in life as a journey and not some race and … well … sometimes people, things and society have a different view.

What this means is you are demanded to compete in some competition you really never agreed to.

Let me explain. There are absolutely a bunch of people out there who define themselves by competition. They seek to find validation & actualization through some comparison versus what others are doing <this, basically, is competition>. And then there are people like me <I do not know how many there are of us but I imagine it is a fairly significant %>. While I like winning and, on occasion, a good competition gets the heart rate up and ‘ups my game’ the majority of the time I don’t view Life when I wake up and go to work as a competition with anyone and anything but myself. I simply want to do good things <epic shit if possible> do the best I can and better than I did yesterday. I guess my competition is yesterday not other people. That said. I am not naïve. I know that everyday I wake up and go to work I am entering into ‘the Thunderdome’ and entering into some competition that I didn’t really agree to.

=========

“Life doesn’t get easier or more forgiving, we get stronger and more resilient.”

Steve Maraboli

============

I don’t like it. But I recognize it. As often as I can, I avoid the competitions I don’t agree to.

By the way … if you google “how to deal with competitions you do not agree to” you will get zilch, zero, no results on that topic.

None.

Ponder that for a second.

All that said.

This does mean that you receive compliments as well as criticisms based on competitions you didn’t agree to.

And that is aggravating. It is like you are being judged by the Race Walking Olympic judges, with scores you don’t really care about, because you were just out jogging that day. Day in and day out people who really do not want to compete, other than with their own standards, are faced with having to accommodate competition they didn’t agree to.

What a fucking pain in the ass. I would also point out it sounds incredibly inefficient and time wasting.

Look. I am not suggesting some competition isn’t bad. I am suggesting that we go fucking overboard with regard to ‘forcing competition’ into all threads of Life & society & culture. I do believe it is healthy for young people to understand that in competition some people win and some people lose and that some people get trophies and not everyone gets one <although getting a trophy is not all there is to success & Life>.

I do believe it is healthy in youth to understand that some people are smarter than others, that some have skills you don’t have and that some people more easily learn some things than you do.

I do believe it is healthy for young people to learn how to compete and that competition can be healthy.

But at some point I think it would be good for society & culture to either turn that switch off or maybe learn how to turn on the dimmer switch because I think part of being an adult is knowing what you are good at and what you may not be good at and deciding for yourself <some would call that personal responsibility> how you want to achieve the best version of yourself.

I am not convinced that society, and business, creating some false versions of competition which almost encourages me to compete in some competition I really didn’t agree to, let alone really want to compete, is a good thing.

I tend to believe people like me think our competition is harsher and more challenging than any competition society can create for me and because of that I tend to want to dismiss outside competitions.

Yeah.

That choice is fraught with peril. Suffice it to say … just knowing that there is peril in not wanting to compete in some competition I didn’t even agree to is aggravating. But that is the world we currently live in. We are asked to compete against other flowers when all most of us want to do is bloom.

“The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds, and the pessimist fears this is true.”

–

James B. Cabell

=============

Well. When entertaining <as if I actually entertain> my favorite drinking glasses are my ottimista pessimista glasses. Italian glasses with a line etched in the middle with ottimista above and pessimista above.

Why? Nothing seems to generate a more lively discussion than one on optimism versus pessimism. Simplistically. most people like to bucket other people into one group or another. Yeah. It is actually a version societal ‘lableing.’ I, a self proclaimed “cynical optimist’ tends to believe there are not many true Eeeyores <pessimists> and not many true Tiggers <optimists> in the world. I tend to believe we have both aspects interwoven and sometimes even situational <albeit our individual personality will skew us toward one or the other>. This combination is a good thing per research:

– according to research from the Master of Applied Positive Psychology program at the University of Pennsylvania, optimistic managers may do a better job of helping employees reach goals and be more productive. In a cross-sectional study of 86 employees and 17 managers at an Information Technology (IT) organization, researchers Margaret Greenberg and Dana Arakawa found that positive leadership correlated with employee optimism, engagement and project performance.

– a German study stated that optimistic people actually face a greater risk of disability or death within 10 years than pessimists who underestimate their future life satisfaction. The reasoning behind this is that the pessimists might actually be a bit more careful about their future than the optimists.

So if we have both we can actually increase productivity AND avoid “disability or death.” Well. That sees like a good combination. The challenge is to have a mix of both while keeping your eye on the realistic ball.

Oops. No can do.

We are individuals and each individual will see reality thru their own optimist or pessimist lens and, even more importantly, judge others thru this lens>. Therefore as we view each other we see a certain characteristic as ‘bad’ or maybe just an unrealistic point of view <by the way, this ‘bad’ can be either optimism OR pessimism>.

Neither optimistic nor pessimistic is bad in and of itself. An article in Psychology Today said:

“It’s simply not the case that optimism is “good” and pessimism is “bad”—although that’s how we’ve been encouraged to think about them. Rather, both are functional. And both have value.”

Interestingly … I often find that this is a discussion seems to take place between conservatives and liberals. Or risk averse and risk taking <which actually align with the political labels>. Ah. The conservative mind. In a 1956 essay “On Being Conservative”, the philosopher Michael Oakeshott wrote that someone with a ‘conservative temperament’ is:

—–

“not in love with what is dangerous and difficult; he is unadventurous; he has no impulse to sail uncharted seas. What others plausibly identify as timidity, he recognizes in himself as rational prudence. He eyes the situation in terms of its propensity to disrupt the familiarity of the features of his world”.

——–

Well.

I am not sure I would go as far as our friend Mr. Oakeshott goes. But. It certainly explains the reluctance among many sane people to take the more radical actions necessary to make radical changes <even when they know they should be done>.

Regardless. If you use only one perception filter, optimism and pessimism both have major flaws.

In problem solving an optimist is at least likely to come up with a number <and variety> of different things to try <maybe one of the will work> … while a pessimist is more likely to noodle over what is wrong, what could go wrong and why in the world we are even facing something wrong … and do nothing <which pretty much almost never works>.

As a generalization this would suggest in survival situations an optimist is more likely to survive.

<please note: I am ALL for survival>

On the other hand. Optimists can be nerve wracking to be around.

They tend to always talk best case and then buy their own hype.And when something does go wrong they inevitably blame the ones who pointed out what could go wrong with their plan <because ‘THEIR stupid, rosy-eyed idea didn’t fucking work’ is how one online writer suggested>.

Unfortunately every positive thought does NOT propel you in the right direction. Misguided optimism is as bad as overcautious pessimism.

Now.

I am hesitant to suggest balance as the key because actually achieving balance is … well … something called “inertia.”

Or.

Stagnation.

Or.

Doing nothing.

At least the optimists move. Because not moving and just wringing your hands means you will never discover something whether you may have expected to find nothing.

=====

“You can discover something in something where you expected to find nothing.”

Regina Derieva <The Last Island>

======

The pessimist doesn’t even have the opportunity to find something.

Lastly. A ‘realist.’ <as an option to being optimistic or pessimistic>. This realist label is pretty popular. Most people suggest being a ‘realist’ is all about someone downplaying the good things <minimizing the highs> and recognizing some bad things as inevitable <minimizing the lows>.

Well. Unfortunately this is not true.

A true realist is someone who makes completely unbiased judgments and who doesn’t see things through any kind of filter. Neither a positive nor a negative one. Unfortunately this means that no one can actually be a realist. Sorry about that. Psychology points out that completely an unbiased perspective is neither possible nor actually productive <most of the time>. In addition … when someone says ‘they only look at the facts … with no emotion’ … well … they <too> are lying.

First.

Two people are likely to feel very differently about the same event simply because they highlight different pieces of the available information <some call these pieces ‘facts’>.

Second.

Even if truly ‘dispassionate’ … someone with a positive mindset will concentrate on other aspects of a situation than someone with a negative mindset.

Third.

Neither of them are necessarily in the wrong.

Anyway.

Here is one thing I do know. There is something really exhausting about reality. What do I mean? Even the most positive optimistic person will inevitably be challenged <if not eventually ground down>. It is a researched factoid that positive beliefs are derived not from the total number of good experiences but from a low ratio of bad versus good experiences.

Whew. That can be exhausting. So. All that said. What do you do about being optimistic or pessimistic?

Well.

In 1949 Harry F Harlow, Professor of Psychology at the University of Wisconsin, outlined an alternative … something he called ‘intrinsic motivation.’ In other words, the joy of the task itself. Another guy, Daniel Pink, discusses this idea all the time and suggests that for most complex tasks intrinsic motivation is a much more powerful drive than any external motivator and that a key part of this motivator is purpose.

“The most highly motivated people, not to mention those who are most productive and satisfied, hitch their drives to a cause larger than themselves.”

In other words, economic incentives alone do not cause individuals to perform complex tasks better <nor make them more optimistic or pessimistic>. So maybe it is the journey that matters the most.

Maybe it has nothing to do with being optimistic or pessimistic.

Maybe all that really matters is doing something with purpose – not an ‘end game.’ Therefore … what this means is you are not optimistic nor pessimistic, but rather simply a person with a purpose.

Anyway.

Here is what I really know for sure:

————

“All good things are difficult to achieve; and bad things are very easy to get.”

Confucius

———–

I always keep that in mind because optimism and positive outcomes really aren’t easy things to do and attain. And bad things happen. Keeping that in mind not only keeps me from being an Eeyore <or pessimistic with regard to Life and the world> it also probably keep me from slitting my wrists <figuratively>. As well as keep me from chugging whatever alcohol someone puts in my ottimista and pessimista glasses and wondering what my Purpose is.

“But the brain does much more than just recollect it inter-compares, it synthesizes, it analyzes, it generates abstractions. The simplest thought like the concept of the number one has an elaborate logical underpinning. “

—

Carl Sagan

==============

I am constantly trying to communicate something incommunicable, to explain something inexplicable, to tell about something I only feel in my bones and which can only be experienced in those bones.”

—

Franz Kafka

===================

This is about ideas and thinking. I am a scribbler. And a sketcher. And a pencil guy. I carry around a stack of index cards & constantly sketch out thoughts for people. My index cards are strewn around the world. I am sure some are used for dart boards, some for a good laugh & some actually was a seed for some idea.

I purposefully used the word “seeds” because I think we would be much better off if we thought of ideas that way. Why? Well. Seeds die or remain underground or get eaten by some squirrel if it isn’t protected, nurtured, watered and pampered in some way to insure it flourishes.

And while there are gobs of articles highlighting ideation process and such , to me, all that matters is an idea doesn’t die with poor articulation. A good idea poorly presented dies. Even great ideas poorly articulated die.

Now.

A shitload of people will want to talk about PowerPoint & presenting & a whole bunch of shit that just gets in the way. Those are simply ways to do it. What matters is how you do it.

Which leads me to the Feynman technique. It is essentially explaining a concept or idea to yourself, on a piece of paper, as if you were teaching it to someone else with little background knowledge. This is all about it’s all making sure you understand it and can you explain it if not simply simple enough to be understood.

I had no clue who Feynman was when I start taking out a piece of paper to find out if what I was thinking made sense on paper. Over time I have found an index card does it for me. it forces the constraint I need to either, well, get it or not get it. If I can’t articulate my idea or thought on an index card I mentally decide it isn’t worth a shit as an idea. Ok. Maybe it is but I know I haven’t figured out a way to articulate it so that it will not die.

Look.

I am not suggesting I am a great idea person or thinker but I am suggesting creating a process to elevate all people’s thinking does not necessarily benefit the smaller group of people who are actually good at thinking & creating ideas. What I mean by that is with the intent to create a better thinking organization we tend to want to throw everyone into the same bucket <I guess we do that to encourage inclusiveness & ‘fairness’>. Unfortunately this means your best of the best get pulled out of what may make them the best & force them into the “unwashed masses” <I am kidding on that phrase but you get the point>.

We should always be thinking two parallel paths. One to elevate the majority and one to empower the minority.

Why? To protect ideas.

Minds work in a variety of ways. It seems to me that organizations should think less about organizing minds but rather freeing minds. If you have someone like me, buy me a stack of index cards & have someone riffle through tem on occasion to see if there is a seed somewhere.

I will say that when I was running a small company I would pin them up on a conference room wall and during meetings anyone at any time could pull it off the wall and say “WTF you thinking?” or “I want to talk about this.”

I learned to articulate better as well as get less defensive about ideas.

The employees learned to articulate better and come up with their own ideas in their own ways. By not having an organizational process but sharing my personal process we ended up having a process.

My point is ideas are seeds. Some don’t deserve to grow & flourish but some do & we should be learning to articulate ideas better to save those seeds.

“It is the moment when what was chaos is now seen as having a center of gravity. There is a shape where a moment ago there was none.”

—-

Peter Elbow

=====================

“If one shifts the center of gravity of life out of life into the “Beyond” – into nothingness – one has deprived life as such of its center of gravity.”

―

Friedrich Nietzsche

===================

Well.

Given the recent study showing 42 people have the same wealth as maybe 50% of the world’s population I thought I would republish this awesome study completed in late 2010 called “Global Economy’s Shifting Centre of Gravity.”

Ok.

Maybe not awesome to some people … but to me? Fascinating reading <I actually read it over a vacation sipping some cocktails>.

Here is the net:

In 1980 the global economy’s center of gravity was somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic ocean.

In 2010 the center of gravity shifted to just east of Helsinki/Bucharest latitude (oddly the longitude doesn’t seem to vary much over time in this modeling).

In 2049 the center of gravity will shift almost two-thirds of the earth’s radius from the 1980 center to somewhere say in west Asia.

What the heck does his have to do with wealth inequality? Well. Because wealth is accumulating on 2 dimensions – on both the y axis as well as the x axis <just not at the same rate>.

Let’s just say that the x axis is shifting upwards globally <average wealth of global individual is improving>. This is good. This means the overall tide is rising.

Let’s just say that the people on the y axis are disproportionately reaping the benfis of a better global wealth improvement. That is bad. This means few continue to benefit at the overall expense of the many <yes, people will haggle with how I worded that>.

All that said … I would envision most people wouldn’t be surprised by this. But I am fairly sure we talk about the y axis all the time and forget to mention the x-axis … that’s my point here.

Anyway. There are some nuances to the study I mentioned that should make people think a bit.

Don’t panic.

I am not going to go into the modeling analytics … but suffice it to say this researcher at The London School of Economics knows his shit and figured out a way to analyze economic power not by clustering <which is an important distinction> but rather center of gravity <it’s kind of like figuring out how to measure the dynamic behavior of spatial economic distribution rather than simplistic clustering>. The study offered truly fascinating cylindrical spatial global maps in which it is almost like viewing an economic holographic image.

I will spare you. What I won’t spare you is what this analytic stuff means.

Suffice it to say that the income dynamics of the average location of the planet’s economic activity is shifting.

I think we all knew this in our gut but now we have actual proof. And it’s kind of sobering proof for those of us in the Western hemisphere <I include South America, Latin America and North America into this pot of people. That global economic activity moves east in this graphic fashion shows the rapid growth in incomes going to the large chunks of humanity who live in India, Africa, China and the rest of East Asia.

<note: population itself changes much more gradually therefore this sharp east-directed rise of the rest is not driven by population growth>

Overall this shift is a reflection of a lot of good things happening in the world <not America getting weaker but rather America becoming a smaller larger global component>. For example 600 million people have been lifted from extreme poverty – a large and rapid improvement in the well-being of humanity that is unprecedented in the history of this planet.

And there is more is to come. In particular, Africa and China will remain growth areas <albeit both in different ways> and poverty will continue to be eradicated.

Now.

All of this could be concerning in a variety of ways.

First.

This isn’t just about money, or income, this is about power. Economic shifts lead to governmental shifts … and intellectual shifts.

Yeah. Mind power. Sorry folks … it isn’t democracy <or any real ‘freedom of’ … although some people may debate the cause/effect of that relationship>. When economic shift permits an elevation of intellectual power that tends to be the formula for sustained shift in economical gravitational pull. I even have an example on economic opportunity … and economic opportunity lost.

We have faced a similar foundational economic re-construct situation before … only to have the economic center of gravity remain skewed toward the western hemisphere. And although the economic center of gravity was threatened at that time … there wasn’t the intellectual shift attached to the economic shift to sustain the movement.

Let’s look back at the last time we may have faced something like this.

The cold war. Soviet Union versus United States <actually … the rest of the world>. The reality is that while Russia tried to fill the void <of prosperity … or maybe better said … ‘better than what is’> and sought to increase its global engagement under the guise of government doctrine it was actually an economic battle. Huh? Think people labor versus capitalism <simplistic but you get the point>. Russia was certainly good at destroying governments and economic construct. However, because of their economic corruption they were unsuccessful in replacing what they destroyed.

Ultimately that was their failure … not a failure of communism but a failure of economy. Which, in the end, meant their failure to sustain an economic shift translated into the fact intellectual power was never maximized.

I promise you that mistake will not happen again. In fact it is happening all over again <not Russia but Eastern Hemisphere & Africa> but … but this economic shift is being sustained. There are two <to me> primary locations pulling the center of gravity. And I will outline each <and why we in the western hemisphere should sit up and pay attention>.

The two? China & Africa <some people may argue India>.

China.

They don’t necessarily destroy. In fact they do the opposite. They simply take less than successful scenarios and through economic success makes each … well … more successful.

Ok. There is a point here. What most Americans <let’s say ‘outsiders’ in general> fail to see is the “more successful” part. Many people measure success off of what we have <or how high is up>. In fact it is through those eyes that we tend to damn China.

Take a step back.

As Mao suggested for China … success would be enabling the majority to afford another pair of shoes. Not a mansion … heck … not even a house … just another pair of shoes … for a gazillion people. And he did it. And China has continued to grow.

Sure. It becomes more difficult from there. But that’s not the point. Other ‘industrialized’ countries measure them in a different way and are being foolish by doing so. China is being successful <for a number of reasons> but because they have taken what they have done well internally within their own country <helped a segment make the next step up> and go elsewhere and offer the same opportunity. They are creating an infrastructure within emerging countries, and emerging economies, <outside of China> to ‘be better than what is.’

In Africa it is transportation and communication interface. In southeast Asia its internal infrastructure.

China is becoming an enabler rather than a destroyer.

In Africa the picture continues to improve.

Wars have subsided and governments have stabilized and they are also adopting their own quasi capitalist-communist economic attitude, i.e., private subsidized by government. Their average GDP has consistently grown almost 5% annually. Over the past 8 years over 80 million households have been elevated above poverty level – to a level where discretionary spending commences in the household. Telecommunications, banking and retailing is flourishing.

This reflects a significant rise in the African urban consumer. In 1980 28% of Africans lived in an urban environment and today over 40% do. In countries where infrastructure is isolated, typically in more urban environments, this means that a more significant portion of the population has access to education, skills development and jobs <note: remember my point on mind power>. In addition, African governments are increasingly adopting policies to maintain the economic growth as they privatize state-owned businesses, open lines of trade <foreign>, strengthen legal systems and provide well needed physical & social infrastructure (a byproduct of that last factor is an increased labor force and economic distribution among the population).

So.

Having used those examples maybe I am maybe actually suggesting the bigger thought is a new communist-capitalism attitude shifting the economic center of gravity <I am erring on the side in my point of view that USA isn’t doing something wrong but rather that others are doing something well>.

I do find it impressive that traditional & evolving governments have attained this balance of communism embracing capitalism. Historically, the two are ideologically irreconcilable. Yet even the traditional communist based governments are proving to be quite pragmatic in supporting pro-growth economic policies <by non traditional communist means>.

China unapologetically clings to communism in every other sense of government policy. A number of more dictatorial based governments in Africa. Everyone should note it is Africa’s more quickly growing economies, characterized by low, stable business tax rates, responsible government spending, reasonable levels of regulation and incentives for business expansion, which certainly represent the highest growth opportunities.

As a result, their economies are expanding, businesses are thriving …. and maybe more importantly … the population is gaining a better way of living.

Once again … in my words … better than what they had.

Yes.

It is interesting to me that it is the economies of communist <or communist like> governments are thriving due to capitalism and responsible pro-growth economic policies. America has taught them well. And because of all that we are seeing a shift in the economic center of gravity.

Anyway.

Sorry. I digressed.

Getting back to the center of gravity. This study reflects how we should be looking at things. Millions of millions of people in developing countries are becoming more wealthy.

Exorbitantly? Nope.

Wealthier? Yes.

Simply moving all developing countries <or the majority … call it a ‘large mass’> to non-poverty from poverty is a massive shift. And by doing so it enables that population to be more productive. More healthy. More educated. More knowledgeable. This is simple shit. But we in the ‘industrialized world’ get caught up in the wrong issues … we assess success by where we are today .. <silly silly people>.

Ok.

Be careful with what I say next.

While USA focuses on government constitutional aspects and “enhancing their constitutional situation” … China is focused on economy.

Now.

I am a HUGE freedom of guy. But. If you want to grow and expand your government/country/culture more … a good economy is a really good thing. But having a realistic point of view on economy is an even better thing. Maybe if we look at the shifting economic center of gravity here in the western hemisphere we shouldn’t look at it as a loss of stature but rather maybe we should seek to gain some learning.

Is this post a message to our government and regulators? Nope.

This is a message to you & I that we have it pretty good here in the good ole USofA.

Is it as good economically as it was? Nope. Is it good? Yup.

This is a message to you & I that people in other countries also want their version of ‘self actualization’ and if economically it comes within grasp … they will try and grab it.

This is not a warning or threat but a suggestion this is an attitude issue for ‘we the people.’ Because with the right attitude then we can create the right behavior. But that is my next economic article. A rant on the everyday American’s economic behavior <because other cultures aren’t as addicted to spending & having stuff as we are>.

In the end.

The economic center of gravity was always going to be tugged away from America as the sheer numbers of the ‘rest of the world’ starting generating … well … economy. However, America needs to remember that at the core of economic gravity is not making shit … its mind power. The smarter the population, the healthier the population and, therefore, the more productive the population.

This is not just about creating value that matches wheat you want to charge but how you present can affect the perceptions.

Discussing value and price perceptions almost always reminds me of the following line from the Ballad of the Old Man of Leningrad: “and where is the end? You’ll find that out when you get there.”

We can discuss value until we are blue in the face … but you will never know what you have actually constructed <in someone’s head> until you get to the end <wherever that is … oh … oops … sorry … you never reach the end>.

We so often talk about ‘value’ in the business world as if it is some nirvana space that once it is attained you can look around in wonder and live happily ever after.

That’s nuts.

Value is a never ending equation <quest, objective, whatever>. As easily as you can gain it <although it is actually not that easy> you can just as easily lose it … or have it diminished … and even increased.

Anyway.

It constantly puzzles me how often I get into business discussions where people bitch & moan about not winning a project or assignment because (a)I had the lowest price but didn’t have the relationship or (b)my price was too high. And I could actually be having this conversation with two competitors in the same bidding process … who lost out to a third ;someone’ … who had neither relationships nor the lowest price and won.

I say that because this rant is about the fact that sometimes it isn’t about the price you are offering but rather how you presented yourself, or whatever it is you are presenting, and how that impacted the perception of the price you ‘should’ offer … which … unfortunately to many ‘bid losers’ … is not the one you actually do offer. I used to think this was relatively basic business, if not sales, understanding that how you present yourself <what you actually show & say> creates a value perception in the audience … but then I realized it wasn’t as I kept getting caught up in this same discussion over and over again.

Look.

I have used a 5 page power point presentation <4 people each presenting one page> and won a bid process with highest price … and had a 50 page PowerPoint and won a bid process with next to lowest price.

Just to note … and I have lost both ways.

My point in noting the number of pages in the presentation is that … well … the number is irrelevant <as long as they are relevant & meaningful you can have a gazillion if you want>. But. It is all what you say … combined with how you say it … which leads to a created perception for value <or an offered price> prior to actually providing the cost/bid … then when you actually provide the cost it either is all aligned or it’s not.

But … sorry … there is no formula.

Regardless.

The presentation matters. People say “I had the lowest bid <but I didn’t win>.” Others say “we were too pricey <our price was too high>.” And when it happens <you lose> people want to dissect their pricing and the bid and gnash their teeth over how to lower their price “to be more competitive” or whatever.

Well … sure … you should certainly explore your pricing … but … typically your price is your price. And if you got the scope of work correct and can agree on how much time and effort it will take to complete the project scope <and that … by the way … can be a HUGE discussion and debate> … in the end … your price is your price.

But here is an unfortunate business truth … high prices win as often as low prices. And I know this for a fact because I dislike being the lowest and am okay with being the highest <prefer upper high> and have seen more wins than losses.

Uh oh.

Then what is it? <if I cannot blame my price!> Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ………… Well. How about the presentation?

Because there is a presentation to price perception that needs to be factored in to any evaluation.

<note: this is often heresy to bring up … because typically the presentation has been fine tuned to a point where it is mind numbingly dull with no edges and therefore is flawless in all presenters minds>

Yup.

The presentation has to meet the price delivered.By the way … simplistically this means you can undersell yourself … as well as oversell yourself.

I say that because this is about alignment. And, no, this isn’t about ‘first impressions’ because a presentation is a compilation/summary of impressions. To be clear … we all know this <but I will remind you anyway> … we are evaluating things all the time.

And even if we recognize that we are evaluating <like in viewing a presentation> we still don’t even recognize much of the evaluation that takes place because much of it is actually usually automatic, subconscious. There has been a boatload of research done on evaluation which I will not bore you with … but will share a cliff notes summary of key points:

This process of evaluation can be broken down into the rising and falling of two perceptions: Perceived Cost and Perceived Benefit. To be clear, the cost of something is not just money. Cost is the receipt of something negative or the release of something positive whereas Benefit is the release of something negative or the receipt of something positive.

Any time a value presentation is made, be it a candy bar in the checkout rack at a grocery store, a pair of earrings online, or a proposal to marry, there is an initial phase when you open your mind “file cabinet” and pull the “folder” associated with whatever value is being presented. As you open this folder, certain things will jump out at you, influencing your initial perceived cost and benefit of the value presented. What is in that folder, what items you pull first, and how much each item affects you depends on two things:

1. Your history with the value presented

2. How it is initially presented

It’s also important to note here that the point at which a visitor makes a commitment to the transaction is not the same point at which they complete the transaction. The time between the commitment and the transaction should be as short and simple as possible. The more complex and time-consuming it is, the more chance the frustration of the transaction process or the “cold feet” effect could keep it from happening.

Look.

I have gobs of practical experience with this <and the scars to prove it> presentation to value perception alignment issue … but I also have some other interesting research on my side:

——————-

‘The pricing practices discussed are highly prevalent in today’s society. While classical economic theory suggests that people will act rationally, using cost benefit analysis to make choices, scientific research shows that this is not the case. Humans do not have the capacity to recognise and evaluate all the available information in today’s complex environment, nor the time or motivation. Instead, people use mental short-cuts, or heuristics, to deal with this complexity.

– Whilst heuristics can usefully guide our behaviour and allow humans to function in the world, they are not perfect calculations and are subject to occasional and sometimes costly mistakes. Importantly, heuristics leave people exposed to external influences, including pricing cues. The literature on pricing practices suggests that pricing cues provided by retailers can affect consumer behaviour and value perceptions.

– Compared to presenting a total price partitioning prices into a base price and surcharge can significantly increase consumers’ positive evaluations and purchase intentions, and can lower search intentions. This is because consumers may fail to fully adjust from the initial (lower) price of the base good and therefore underestimate the total price of the product.

– Evidence suggests that people tend to stick with the default option, even when this option has major, long-term consequences.’

University College London 2010

——————————-

Well.

Like it or not … even our presentations are being evaluated through this wacky thing called heuristics. Pricing cues abound within presentations <value cues certainly do abound> … and they scream at the top of their lungs even if you aren’t looking at them.

Even worse?

You can even be silent and be giving a price or value cue. For example.

Bach was a master of ‘negative space’ … building masterful musical combinations … he also used silences that are as eloquent and thought provoking as notes, tempo and syncopation.

<I used Bach because I tend to believe most of us who have built a presentation kind of feel like a composer>.

By the way. While you may be thinking I am only discussing big important presentations which have been rehearsed and rehearsed … but this discussion actually pertains to almost any size and quantity of project management discussions.

What do I mean?

Well.

I have seen 5000 project estimates generated for one business in one year. And on that type of business I have seen a tendency to simply slide an estimate across the table <or emailed> and just ask for a signature for go ahead. No presentation … just slide the estimate over to a client and look for the quick & easy ‘get it going’.

Uhm.

And the client customer slides it right back and says “nope … too <fill in value reason here>.”

And I have seen 5 project estimates generated for one business in one year … and even on these businesses a project can be mis-presented or not even presented at all. And the client customer slides that one right back at ya too.

In the end.

Value is kind of like … well … the world and life In fact … it reminds me of something I read:

———————–

“The world is not as simple as we like to make it out to be. The outlines are often vague and it’s the details that count.

Nothing is really truly black or white and bad can be a disguise for good or beauty … and vice versa without one necessarily excluding the other.

Someone can both love and betray the object of its love … without diminishing the reality of the true feelings <and value>.

Life <and business whether we like to admit it or not> is an uncertain adventure in a diffuse landscape whose borders are constantly shifting where all frontiers are artificial <therefore unique is basically artificial in its inevitable obseletion> where at any moment everything can either end only to begin again … or finish suddenly forever … like an unexpected blow from an axe.

Where the only absolute, coherent, indisputable and definitive reality … is death. We have such little time when you look at Life … a tiny lightning flash between two eternal nights.

Everything has to do with everything else.

Life is a succession of events that link with each other whether we want them to or not.”

Arturo Perez Revarte

——————————————

That all maybe too poetic in discussing something like giving presentations and creating value but simply put … “everything has to do with everything else.”

Well.

That certainly encompasses that wacky thing called ‘value.’ Presentations are part of everything. And if you are not careful … your presentation can send a different value, or price, cue than what you will actually offer as your price.

That is misaligned messaging <including non verbal cues into the messaging header>. And misaligned is bad <that is a Bruceism>.

So I thought I had left the whole right brain left brain discussion behind.

And it reared its ugly head again one more time just the other day. And <distressingly> it was in a business environment, with senior people, discussing people’s strengths & weaknesses.

Look.

This whole right brain, left brain thing about creativity versus ‘logical’ thinking has to stop.

Stop … now <please>.

The truth?

We use our whole brain for thinking. Not halves. And right brain left brain mumbo jumbo is just that … a bunch of mumbo jumbo crap.

Yup.

The whole thing is bullshit.

Trust me <you don’t really have to because I will share reasons why you should>. And if you don’t believe me … well … if you ever want to drive a psychologist/psychiatrist/neurologist/any ‘ist’ crazy … bring it up.

With that … a reminder on what his whole thing is. In the right-left mythology … the left brain is logical, ordered, and analytic, and it supports reading, speech, math, and reasoning. In the same myth … the right brain is more oriented towards feelings and emotions, spatial perception, and the arts, and is said to be more creative.

Well.

Interesting myth. And it is just a myth. It is wrong (wrong & wrong … and maybe even wrong again).

And we have actually known for at least 30 years that this characterization is incorrect.

In fact the guy who probably put us all in this mess originally <Mike Gazzaniga who created the study in the 60’s that some pop psychologist used to write some fantasy-like left/right brain business books that became best sellers> who was a pioneer of modern study of brain hemispheric differences immediately tried to put a stop to the craziness as soon as it began with a book chapter titled “Left brain, right brain: A debunking.”

And he did that 25 years ago.

<note: he wrote it because the original crap was begun after he did a brain hemisphere study in the 60’s>

And, yet, there is still plenty of bunk to go around.

Its crazy.

I myself have gnashed my teeth <and sometimes growled> against the “left brain / right brain” myth for years <probably not 25 but a bunch>. It usually is personal <and I believe this is so for most people>. People are always trying to tell me how “right-brained” I am <or left … I get confused>.

Which I always find amusing since whatever I am doing invariably needs whatever the other side of the brain was supposed to be doing.

Plus. I would like to think I am using my whole frickin’ brain.

But.

It mostly aggravates me ,and kind of disturbs me> because it is deliberately misleading.

It has been used to support endless management dialogue telling us that we should liberate ourselves from too much left-brain ‘logical’ thinking and enjoy the fruits of our liberated, right-brained creativity <or vice versa depending on your management belief system>.

Look.

People may be inherently more visual, aural, spatial, sequential, intuitive, rational <or irrational> talented or non-talented … but it ain’t because of anything to do with left versus right brain.

Ok.

If you don’t trust me I pulled this from a medical journal.

A more technical explanation of how the whole thing went haywire:

==

You’ve probably heard this left/ right brain dichotomy before. It goes something like this: the left hemisphere of the brain is logical, deductive, mathematical, etc., while the right hemisphere is artistic, visual and imaginative. The idea stems at least partly from the classic studies of split brain patients performed by Sperry and Gazzaniga in the 1960s.

There are some functional asymmetries in the brain, and it is true that certain regions of both hemispheres are specialized for particular functions. Speech illustrates this, but also shows that nothing is ever so simple when it comes to the brain: in most right-handed people, speech is processed in both hemispheres, but predominantly in the left. In some left-handers, speech is processed either predominantly in the right hemisphere or on both sides.

So the notion that someone is “left-brained” or “right-brained” is absolute nonsense. All complex behaviours and cognitive functions require the integrated actions of multiple brain regions in both hemispheres of the brain. All types of information are probably processed in both the left and right hemispheres (perhaps in different ways, so that the processing carried out on one side of the brain complements, rather than substitutes, that being carried out on the other).

An article was published this week in the venerable (and reliable) psychology journal Psychological Bulletin, which synthesized 67 brain imaging studies of creativity. Among other things, it showed that creativity is not especially a right-brain function. In fact, two of three broad classes of creative thought that have been studied seem not to depend on a single set of brain structures.

What we call “creativity” is so diverse that it can’t be localized in the brain very well.

One might think that this study would put to rest at least part of the left brain/right brain mythology, namely, that the right hemisphere of the brain is more responsible for creative thought than the left.

One would think so, but I wouldn’t count on it.

==

My conclusion?

I put the whole right/left brain thing in the same category as reading a horoscope or reading my own tarot cards. If you give someone a vague positive description in which they can see themselves they will tend to agree with you. And that is dangerous on a number of levels <if people actually believe it>.

Ok.

Here is the main reason I bring this up <beyond the fact it drives me crazy and it is still being seriously discussed in the business world>. It has a detrimental effect on education and how we manage our youth. It is as bad as social profiling when it comes to kids.

Left brain kid.

Right brain kid.

You carry that label and not only does the child begin to see themselves in that label <it is kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy> the adults tag the child with the label. And start treating them that way. And expecting things based on the labeling.

All of a sudden the child is placed on the left, or right, brain treadmill <oops … I meant to say moving sidewalk>.

And then they are left there.

Uh oh.

One day the child wants to jump off the treadmill to hop on the other one for a while … <adults> “whoa … get back on your treadmill … you know that other one is only for the right brainers … and you will be much more successful on the left brain treadmill <sidewalk>.”

That, my friends, reads scary even if it seems just a theory.

And we all know that at some place, at some time, with some children … this is actually happening.

We need to squash this left/right brain myth forever. Now <please … again>.

We use all of our brain.

Brains are ambidextrous.

And even if you, personally, do not want to believe this, well, please … at least teach kids that is is so.

====================================

“Rabbit’s clever,” said Pooh thoughtfully.“Yes,” said Piglet, “Rabbit’s clever.”“And he has Brain.”“Yes,” said Piglet, “Rabbit has Brain.”There was a long silence.“I suppose,” said Pooh, “that that’s why he never understands anything.”

“To quote a British observer of us from some years ago, bear with us, once we have exhausted all possible alternatives, the Americans will do the right thing.”

———–

James Mattis

================

Well.

Throughout my life & career I have crisscrossed the country walking into mechanic shops, retail stores, supermarkets, numerous hotels/motels/inns and bars & restaurants.

I went to a public high school with a mostly agriculture student attendance and went to a college where the Crips and Hoover Family Blood patrolled the edges of the campus <and had a gang member stabbed 75 times in the alley behind my off campus apartment>.

In addition, I have received glimpses into the lives of Americans, rural/suburban/urban, behind the one way mirrors of research and face-to-face… in rural West Virginia & Kentucky, Wyoming, Ohio, Texas, Wisconsin, New York, California, New Mexico, Colorado and … well … pick your home and I have had a glimpse of your life.

I have met the least educated and the most educated <and you most likely would be surprised at how alike they are behind the façade of education> and felt hopeless at the hopelessness of some and found hope in the stories of those who had so much ‘no quit’ in them I felt less than worthy of my own efforts in Life.

I would suggest that what we all have in common in America is maddening. It is the fact we will exhaust all possible alternatives … and then, in most cases, do the right thing.

Love it or hate it … that is what we Americans do.

We are a stubborn folk we Americans. But I tend to believe the ‘exhausting all our alternatives’ is simply the same gauntlet we run time and time again … “I” to “we”.

What? Almost every single person when pushed into a corner <”no one puts Baby into a corner” type attitude> will defend what is possibly the most tried & true American ideal that every American in every corner of the country can pull out of their hip pocket – individual freedom. Freedom to think what I think, freedom to pray like I want to pray, freedom to say what I want to say, freedom to own a gun if I want, freedom to watch, do or go where I want.

Everything begins there.

That is the entrance to the gauntlet. And unlike Dante’s entrance to Hell which says “Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’intrate” — most frequently translated as “abandon all hope, ye who enter here” — the American entrance says “this way to something better.”

However, I feel compelled to point out that no matter how much you gussy up a gauntlet … it is still a gauntlet and while it may have some pretty pictures on the walls of the tunnel you are still gonna get the crap kicked out of you.

We don’t take the easy path. That’s just what we do. Despite the fact we talk about common sense or “the simplest is the best” incessantly … America inherently explores all and any alternatives, no matter how painful, until we arrive at what is right.

Mattis reminded me of this.

We never make it easy.

I will note Trump may add a painful dynamic to this characteristic but even without him … we exhaust ourselves as we exhaust all alternatives.

Here is the good news. Our history resides with arriving, ultimately, at the right thing. The arc of our gauntlet tunnel curves toward ‘doing the right thing’ versus ‘doing the wrong thing.’

I imagine my thought for today is twofold.

First is that there is no one person, or class of people, or type of person which ultimately places us in this ‘right thing’ place. This one place is arrived at by the fruits of labor of the many — out of many, one.

The second is that far too often we refer to the ‘many’, people, in demeaning or diminishing terms. We look at people who don’t think the way we do, people who voted for someone else or people who want to do something different than what we want to do as ‘stupid’ or ‘idiots’ or ‘ignorant.’ I can honestly say, having traveled the far corners of America, I would suggest we should maybe see other people as ‘good hearted’ or ‘well intended’ or ‘knows things I don’t know.’

I would also suggest that most people are willing to listen if you are respectful enough to listen to them.

I would also suggest that most people have a story and that story impacts how they think about things and how they decide what should be done with … well … “the we.”

Most people enter the gauntlet with an “I” perspective … even those who fully understand that we are a greater “we.”

We do so because we are part of America which is built upon individual freedoms and each of us value our personal choice. Amusingly <painfully so> it is that individual freedom which permits us the excruciating good conflict that not all the other “I’s” view their individual freedoms the same way. Therefore, the gauntlet is alternative after alternative in which we are painfully bludgeoned into understanding that the “I” makes some compromises for the greater “we”. In addition … we go through the excruciating painful conflict which permits us to see 99% of the other ‘many’ have good hearts, are not really idiots and know shit that we do not know.

We enter the gauntlet as an “I” and come out with a larger respect for the “we.” And it is that gauntlet which hones all the other alternatives into the one alternative which is ‘the right thing.’

Sometimes it helps to remind myself of this.

It helps especially when it doesn’t feel that way … especially when the Warrior Monk, James Mattis, is forced to say it out loud to non-Americans. Because, in my mind, just the fact he has to say it means that we all need to be reminded of it. And, maybe most importantly, as we think about this man … and his words … it permits us to reject the entire concept of “abandon hope all ye who enter” with all of us already who are in this concept called “America.”

Yeah.

It feels painful now. It feels more difficult than it has to be. It feels like there is even less alignment than maybe we had even a year ago.

But maybe it just feels like we are exploring all the alternatives along our way to exhaust all of them n our pursuit to the inevitable – Americans will do the right thing.

Good thought for the day. Well, at least, that is my thought for the day.